High Court Protects Government Employees' Medical Rights in Landmark Ruling
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant judgment safeguarding the medical rights of government employees. In a ruling that emphasizes constitutional protections, the court has declared that medical reimbursement cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds, particularly when treatment is sought in emergencies at non-empanelled hospitals or without prior permission.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil's Pragmatic Approach
Justice Sandeep Moudgil passed these crucial orders while allowing a petition filed by CRPF personnel Balhar Singh. The court directed the CRPF to reimburse medical expenses for Singh and his wife after their claims were rejected on technical grounds during the unprecedented circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic. Justice Moudgil further urged the CRPF to adopt a more pragmatic approach to emergency medical claims to prevent future hardship for government employees.
Constitutional Foundations of the Ruling
The court's decision rests firmly on constitutional principles. The bench stated that under Article 21 of the Constitution, access to medical treatment forms an integral part of the fundamental right to life. Denying reimbursement in life-threatening situations effectively obstructs this essential right. Furthermore, the court identified a violation of Article 14, stating that the rigid application of procedural rules during a pandemic constitutes arbitrary and unequal treatment.
The Case of CRPF Personnel Balhar Singh
Balhar Singh, stationed at the Pinjore Group Centre, suffered a heart attack in May 2020 during the height of the pandemic. While he initially began treatment at an empanelled CGHS hospital in Chandigarh, limited facility availability during the lockdown forced him to seek further cardiac care at a private medical centre. The CRPF rejected Singh's claim of approximately Rs 1.48 lakh, citing the Medical Attendance Rules of 1944 and classifying the treatment as day-care rather than OPD.
A similar claim of over Rs 1.21 lakh for his wife's cardiac treatment was denied due to technicalities including a lack of referral slips and non-availability certificates. The court observed that authorities had adopted a "hyper-technical and mechanical approach" while completely ignoring the extraordinary circumstances prevailing during the global health crisis.
Court's Observations on Emergency Situations
The court carefully examined the medical records and established that both the petitioner and his wife faced urgent cardiac emergencies, making their treatment unavoidable. "The repeated rejection of the petitioner and his wife's medical reimbursement claims during the Covid-19 pandemic amounts to a clear violation of constitutional rights," the court held emphatically.
The judgment also highlighted that under Article 47, the state has a duty to ensure healthcare access for all citizens. This constitutional obligation extends to government employees who serve the nation.
Practical Implications and Directives
Consequently, the court directed the CRPF to:
- Waive procedural deficiencies in emergency medical claims
- Release admissible funds without unnecessary delay
- Adopt a more humane approach to medical reimbursement cases
- Consider the practical realities of emergency healthcare situations
This landmark ruling establishes an important precedent for all government departments and organizations dealing with employee medical claims. It reinforces that constitutional rights to healthcare must prevail over bureaucratic technicalities, especially during emergencies and extraordinary circumstances like the pandemic.
